//
you're reading...
Logic & Scientific Philosophy

Dark Matter/Energy ~Lazar

1. All Dark Matter cannot be observed,

2. Some sections in the universe that cannot be observed,

/   Some sections of the universe is dark matter.

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

Here is a wonderful example of an argument consisting of two true premises, yet the conclusion cannot neither be deemed true nor false (for now). Let’s slow down for a second and first dissect the validity of the argument. lets consider ‘X’ Dark Matter, ‘Y’ Observation, and ‘Z’ The Universe. (You know the drill)

1. All X is Y

2. Some Z is Y

/ Some X is Z

With this, it can be determined that the form is indeed accurate, thus making the argument valid. On the other hand, concluding weather or not this argument is factually correct is a challenge due to the questionable existence of Dark matter.

To begin, how can we for sure understand something if we cannot even observe it our selves? Better yet, how can we deem the existence of a certain occupancy of space by finding nothing occupying a certain section of the cosmos? Considering these questions, is it not safe to claim that the conclusion is false, due to lack of evidence. Yet on the contrary, the little evidence that scientists have found are simply theories revolving around observation in vicinity and due to this so called dark matter/energy. The best part is, scientists have even began explaining the accelerated expansion of our universe along theories involving dark matter and dark energy, yet knowing almost nothing about it. Considering this half of the equation, our conclusion can seem true and factually correct, but in the end it comes down which belief one supports.

So what does this do for me and you? Well, if Dark matter is indeed proved to exist, then not only does that revolutionize the scientific community by proving that the universe is expanding, and even possibly taking huge leap in determining how the universe was created, but also due to this advancement, it would effect religious beliefs as well (Stating that god ‘may’ have not created the universe, etc.). However, the human race wont have to worry about that for what I believe will be a long time, because of course, how can we prove something we cannot neither see nor detect?

Advertisements

Discussion

7 thoughts on “Dark Matter/Energy ~Lazar

  1. Hi Lazar,

    You put forward an interesting argument – which ended up being completely true, but I would question the validity. I would just keep in mind that just because x is y, it doesn’t mean that y is x. For example, if x is y, and z is y, it doesn’t mean that z is y and therefore x is y is z . A really good example of this is the weather:

    1. In order for rain to exist, there must be clouds
    2. There is rain
    3. Therefore, there are clouds

    The example above is totally viable – but the logic you used is similar to this:

    1. In order for rain to exist, there must be clouds
    2. There are clouds
    3. Therefore, there is rain

    Obviously, this is not true. There can be clouds without rain.

    Apart from this logically error, you pose a very interesting question at the end – “how can we prove something we cannot neither see nor detect?”. Do you suppose that we can detect or see the effects of it? This idea is something that you’ll be approaching later on in Philosophy 12 (I assume) and also is the basis for a variety of scientific theories (black holes), as well as hold a key role in developing the “God argument” for many religions.

    Good luck in your future endeavours, and tackling this topic!
    Jonathan Toews

    PS: I could very well be wrong, too, so don’t take my argument as flawless either

    Posted by JonathanToews | September 27, 2013, 12:51 am
  2. I understand what u mean by the validity of m argument; how if i simply state my argument in a different order such as “All dark matter cannot be observed, some sections of the universe can be observed, therefore some section are not dark matter…”
    Regarding your comment on how one can prove something by its effects; that is completely viable. However, when i mentioned how scientists do have some evidence of dark matter, it from the basis of effects they have noticed occurring around these potential dark matter vicinity in the cosmos. The question i find more philosophically approachable (Rather than scientifically), is whether it is fair to prove an existence of a mass without being able to ever observe it or detect it?

    PS: Are you related to “The” Jonathan Toews?

    Posted by thelaserbeam17 | September 27, 2013, 2:07 am
    • (I believe) your newly written argument is valid – it works a lot better than your first set.

      In regards to proving the existence of a mass, it all depends on what you accept as true. If you are a believer in dualism (which encompasses both the physical and non-physical world), then of course, it is fair to assume unobserved matter can exist. Conversely, if you are monistically viewing the universe from a physicalism/materialism perspective, then there is no room for the undetectable – there is only matter.

      This is where a lot of philosophy seems to get caught up – the simple logical arguments are easy, but try debating something like dualism – very difficult, with little concrete data to work with. Hence, the “unknowable” image philosophy boasts today.

      PS: Unfortunately, I have no relation to the hockey player

      Posted by JonathanToews | September 27, 2013, 3:40 am
  3. Great post. All the posts are excellent, but this is the first one I have questions about.

    1. Dark mark existing would not prove the universe is expanding. We’ve known that for awhile. Rather, dark energy would be the explanation as to why the universe is expanding more rapidly, making it unlikely that the universe will recollaspe into a Big Crunch, succumbing to gravities grip. As a result, I was confused as to why you claimed that the existence of dark matter would prove the universe is expanding. Is that what you meant?

    2. Is it really a barrier to belief that we can’t see dark matter? We don’t see black holes, magnetic fields or subatomic particles, but we infer their existence based on what we do observe. How would dark matter, in principle, be different?

    3. Why and how would the discovery of dark matter and/or energy impact the God hypothesis as presented in an earlier argument in this site, or just in general?

    4. Don’t you think it is awesome that we don’t understand 95% of the universe? I think it is awesome!

    Great post. Thanks for taking the time to consider these questions even if you dont have time to answer them.

    Great job!

    Chris

    Posted by Chris Price | September 27, 2013, 4:10 am
  4. Hey Chris!
    1) Yes, that is wrong on my behalf, I should have phrased dark energy when I meant it. On the note of the expansion of our universe; we do have theories and sets of evidence demonstrating its expansion; however, I was referring to how dark energy can define this knowledge even more, therefore, giving it an even bigger backbone to the extent that we could eventually claim it as completely true.
    2)Observations aren’t simply defined as “seeing” something occur, rather they are anything that can be recorded, for example: we can detect radiation and immense amounts of light around black holes, magnetic fields are detectable by radiation, and subatomic particles by their energy and systematic order in chemical reaction. To the regard of Dark matter and energy, we are not able to detect it or record it in any way, hence, why I stated it is “unobservant”.
    3)The discovery of Dark matter and energy can be linked to the expansion of our universe as well potentially, to its creation. This is where I was coming from when I was stating how it can effect religious beliefs, because if the creation of our universe can be proven, where does that stand with religions who claim god has created it. However, at these stages it is very unlikely and difficult to conclude this, although it is a hypothesis.
    4)Yes i thoroughly Love how we almost know nothing about the physical space we live in. What i enjoy to think about even more is, how everything we have defined scientifically here on our planet, some potential alien civilization may have completely different theories and conclusions. Even more so, how our “language” of numbers, (Calculus and other sects of math) are our basis of proving some theories through numbers and equation. I wonder if other alien civilizations have a system identical, possibly even similar. .

    Thanks!
    ~Lazar.

    Posted by thelaserbeam17 | September 27, 2013, 6:30 am
    • Lazar,

      Really quick comment on #3 (because this will come up again and again through the semester). A common misconception is that the big bang, or expansion of the universe rules out God. What if God chose to create the universe in a way that involves the big bang? Or expansion? Please keep in mind that observations of the unfolding of the universe does not directly correlate with the existence of God. God (theoretically) can exist regardless of how the universe was founded.

      Posted by JonathanToews | September 27, 2013, 6:48 am

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: